0
Hooknswoop

Does being a USPA GM DZ mean the DZ is safer than not being a GM member?

Recommended Posts

LeeroyJenkins

Quote

The real "benefit" is the directing of people from the USPA website and the illusion that a USPA DZ is safer than a non-USPA DZ.



This poll shows otherwise.



The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Millstone

For example, if your DZ has an incident it will be discovered that you are a group member of USPA who has signed a pledge to follow ALL of the rules. This means if you have broken ANY rules related to your USPA membership, wether it is related to the incident or not, the courts will conclude you have not been following industry standards and you will be found negligent.



Wouldn't that line of thinking (true or not) suggest that it is better NOT to be a group member, so one can say that one didn't sign a pledge to follow all the rules? Or indeed be a non USPA DZ, but say that one uses rules similar to the USPA, plus USPA instructors to get students to attain USPA ratings that are internationally recognized?

The fewer rules you have promised to keep, the fewer rules you will have broken.

And really, how true is your statement anyway? If there's an accident being litigated, does it really matter if last season someone did an unrelated hop and pop load with experienced jumpers at 2000', rather than the newer 2500'? Like that's really going to change your liability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westerly

***
The answer is, it doesn't need to. In the US at least, our legal system provides all of the motivation, and then some, for DZO's to follow the rules.



Yea, right, which is why half the DZs out there do unsafe stuff, right? Skydivers have been killed from DZOs who conducted improper/ non-existent aircraft maintenance. Guess what, the companies are still around. Yep, they got sued, but it dident matter. That is what insurance is for. A DZO is not going to care that much if they get sued. Their insurance picks up the tab, not them. I know one DZ in particular that has been sued at least five separate times. They are still in business being doing shady stuff like they always do.

What kind of insurance are you referring to?

Do you actually think that DZs have liability insurance to cover skydiving accidents?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeeroyJenkins

******

Quote

The real "benefit" is the directing of people from the USPA website and the illusion that a USPA DZ is safer than a non-USPA DZ.



This poll shows otherwise.



The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos.

And?

Skydivers don't normally look at the USPA website to find a place to learn to skydive. Also, it is not limited to "new" people in the sport. I guy that has been jumping 45 years 'knows' more than a guy that has yet to get a license.

But I think you knew that. Again, strawman from you.

Is this the best you are going to do? If so, don't expect me to continue to play your game.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have a dog in this fight, as I am a recovering DZO, however...

Regardless of how you view the effectiveness of the USPA GM program, I can tell you that airport sponsors and the FAA FSDO look favorably upon a Group Member DZ in many cases.

In some instances, like mine, it was a requirement to skydive at the airport.

Being a Group Member made dealing with the FAA an easier ordeal, IMHO.


Carry on...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron

*********

Quote

The real "benefit" is the directing of people from the USPA website and the illusion that a USPA DZ is safer than a non-USPA DZ.



This poll shows otherwise.



The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos.

And?

Skydivers don't normally look at the USPA website to find a place to learn to skydive. Also, it is not limited to "new" people in the sport. I guy that has been jumping 45 years 'knows' more than a guy that has yet to get a license.

But I think you knew that. Again, strawman from you.

Is this the best you are going to do? If so, don't expect me to continue to play your game.

Lol, Ron I didn't even make an argument, and I'm not misrepresenting your stance. There could be no strawman. I asked you a follow up question and I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from?

I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You needed to finish and clarify your statement. I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from? You still haven't explained that.



Yep, more strawmen....

Quote

I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance.



There never has been a "guaranty" of safety, only the ILLUSION of the guaranty of safety to people who are uniformed.

You are ignoring the point and instead trying to distract. I am done wasting my time.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am a recovering DZO, however...



GREAT!!!! A fantastic person to get an opinion on the topic.

Quote

I can tell you that airport sponsors and the FAA FSDO look favorably upon a Group Member DZ in many cases.



OK so the appearance of safe.... Now as a DZO, did being a GM DZ make you act any safer? Was your DZ safer because you were a GM?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron

Quote

You needed to finish and clarify your statement. I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from? You still haven't explained that.



Yep, more strawmen....

***I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance.



There never has been a "guaranty" of safety, only the ILLUSION of the guaranty of safety to people who are uniformed.

You are ignoring the point and instead trying to distract. I am done wasting my time.

You really need me to go back through your post history and find the one where you literally said that about the USPA? Did you forget? lol

I ask you questions to clarify your point, you call it a strawman, then you say I am ignoring the point and distracting. I am asking you questions directly related to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a reminder for you Ron.

Quote

Do I think the organization that... claims to "certify" certain DZ's as safe and that claims to regulate skydiving in the US...



Quote

How dare I think the organization that licenses and "certify's" DZ's as "safe" should actually do their job!!!!!



Quote

You will have to forgive me for wanting the USPA to do all it claims it does.



Really wish I could find the one where you used the terms promise or guarantee. Seems like it was part of a deleted comment of yours. Either way the above comments make it very clear certifying DZ as safe is something you think the USPA does.

Edit: Winner winner chicken dinner.

Quote

Seems to me it is more honorable that being a sheep and disagreeing but still sending in your money so they can give it away and making false promises about them ensuring DZ's are safe.



So yeah, you 100% believe the USPA promise its GM DZ are safe.

Sorry Bud ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You a USPA member? You a DZO in the US? You work at a US DZ? You work at a US GM DZ?




I own a piece of a small DZ in Canada. I am a CSPA member and so is our DZ. The system is very similar. We require anyone jumping with us to be a member of their National Association. We honour FAI credentials issued through them.

I have occasionally had discussions across the manifest window with people who have similar objections as you. To end those I will often blame it on the need for third party liability insurance. They can join or they can walk. They usually join.

But the real reason we are a CSPA DZ is not the insurance. I could buy that cheaper than the fees we pay. We join our National Association because they provide ratings and CoPs and structure to the sport. We make our customers join because most of them want those things, and those that want to be free agents can open their own DZ and just see how that goes when they can't get any instructors.

I don't really care if you are done with me. The only reason I bother to post about this is so that others can understand just how weak your reasoning is. DZOs are people who are passionate about the sport. If you know some that say they need "USPA for advertising", they probably just got sick and tired of listening to you complain about needing a membership and they told you that to make you go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeeroyJenkins

************

Quote

The real "benefit" is the directing of people from the USPA website and the illusion that a USPA DZ is safer than a non-USPA DZ.



This poll shows otherwise.



The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos.

And?

Skydivers don't normally look at the USPA website to find a place to learn to skydive. Also, it is not limited to "new" people in the sport. I guy that has been jumping 45 years 'knows' more than a guy that has yet to get a license.

But I think you knew that. Again, strawman from you.

Is this the best you are going to do? If so, don't expect me to continue to play your game.

Lol, Ron I didn't even make an argument, and I'm not misrepresenting your stance. There could be no strawman. I asked you a follow up question and I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from?

I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance.

Its really not that difficult to anyone with half a functioning brain.

Anyone who knows nothing about skydiving, researching options, would naturally assume that an operation belonging to a national organisation, would by so doing, be compliant with any rules or protocols that organisation promulgates. Especially when it has US as part of its title.

Most national organisations have some sort of code of conduct.

Any operation not a member of USPA, would prolly be regarded as a cowboy outfit. Why would you not be a member unless you didn't want to follow the rules?

That would be the perception of most people. Most skydivers would know differently. Hence the poll results.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim

***************

Quote

The real "benefit" is the directing of people from the USPA website and the illusion that a USPA DZ is safer than a non-USPA DZ.



This poll shows otherwise.



The "poll" is asking skydivers, not whuffos.

And?

Skydivers don't normally look at the USPA website to find a place to learn to skydive. Also, it is not limited to "new" people in the sport. I guy that has been jumping 45 years 'knows' more than a guy that has yet to get a license.

But I think you knew that. Again, strawman from you.

Is this the best you are going to do? If so, don't expect me to continue to play your game.

Lol, Ron I didn't even make an argument, and I'm not misrepresenting your stance. There could be no strawman. I asked you a follow up question and I have another question. Where does the illusion of safety come from?

I mean you moved the goalposts from "guaranteeing that a DZ is safe" to "giving the illusion that its safe" so I am just trying to clarify your stance.

Its really not that difficult to anyone with half a functioning brain.

Anyone who knows nothing about skydiving, researching options, would naturally assume that an operation belonging to a national organisation, would by so doing, be compliant with any rules or protocols that organisation promulgates. Especially when it has US as part of its title.

Most national organisations have some sort of code of conduct.

Any operation not a member of USPA, would prolly be regarded as a cowboy outfit. Why would you not be a member unless you didn't want to follow the rules?

That would be the perception of most people. Most skydivers would know differently. Hence the poll results.

Ron's stance has been sliding all over the place. I am just trying to lock his position and argument down. This whole thing started because he decided it was the USPA's job to post here and tell us what happen because it seems to him this is a really big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really wish I could find the one where you used the terms promise or guarantee. Seems like it was part of a deleted comment of yours.



Yep, like I said... Strawmen. And you will notice in the other quotes I use quotation marks.

And your edit.... that the best you have?

Might want to read the pledge the DZO is supposed to sign:
https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/Man_GM.pdf

"As a person with operational control, I pledge to:"

That is a promise. And we have clear evidence that the USPA does not hold the DZO to it, but we only have that proof and knowledge because we have been in the sport for a while. Heck, even some jumpers in this thread think a GM DZ is safer.

You have nothing but strawmen. I should have stopped wasting my time a while ago, but I kept hoping you would bring something of substance.... You didn't.

As obelixtim said... It is pretty clear. You just are arguing to argue at this point. You have fun with that.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't really care if you are done with me. The only reason I bother to post about this is so that others can understand just how weak your reasoning is.



So no. You are not a USPA member. You do not work at a USPA GMDZ. Yet, you claim to be an expert on why US DZO's join the USPA.

Quote

If you know some that say they need "USPA for advertising", they probably just got sick and tired of listening to you complain about needing a membership and they told you that to make you go away.



Yep, more personal crap..... That IS all you can bring... Goodbye.

Anyone know if I can block a person so I don't even see them? Asking for a friend.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron

Quote

Really wish I could find the one where you used the terms promise or guarantee. Seems like it was part of a deleted comment of yours.



Yep, like I said... Strawmen. And you will notice in the other quotes I use quotation marks.

And your edit.... that the best you have?

Might want to read the pledge the DZO is supposed to sign:
https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/Man_GM.pdf

"As a person with operational control, I pledge to:"

That is a promise. And we have clear evidence that the USPA does not hold the DZO to it, but we only have that proof and knowledge because we have been in the sport for a while. Heck, even some jumpers in this thread think a GM DZ is safer.

You have nothing but strawmen. I should have stopped wasting my time a while ago, but I kept hoping you would bring something of substance.... You didn't.

As obelixtim said... It is pretty clear. You just are arguing to argue at this point. You have fun with that.



Lol, Ron, all I did was post quotes of things you said so everyone can see what you said. I need your position to stop changing before I can argue against it.

“The best I have” is a quote of you using the word promise. Saying that the USPA promises it’s member DZ are safe. You then posted in the comment I’m replying too that’s it is a promise.

I’m still not making an argument against your stance, still asking you questions. I see you also posted the group member pledge. Where the DZ pledges (promises in your words) to the USPA that it will follow their rules. No where do I see a promise from USPA to the masses that it’s member DZ are safe.

Ron, can you show us where the USPA says that it promises it’s member DZ are “certified “safe” as you like to say? As of now it appears you think that if that is incorrect or not what you mean you can make this easier for everyone, just post your position clearly and precisely in your next comment with no BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Wouldn't that line of thinking (true or not) suggest that it is better NOT to be a group member, so one can say that one didn't sign a pledge to follow all the rules?"

No. Absolutely not. USPA is about creating industry standards, and the best thing a business like ours can do is to strictly adhere to all best practices and industry standards. Nothing shows you're doing that better than by being a USPA member and strictly following all of the guidelines.

"And really, how true is your statement anyway?"

Very true. This is very naive of you.Any rule you break will be used against you as correlative evidence. And remember juries and judges are whuffo's. Lawyers will make connections you never dreamed possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Millstone



Second; why does USPA have no "teeth" to enforce their rules?
The answer is, it doesn't need to. In the US at least, our legal system provides all of the motivation, and then some, for DZO's to follow the rules. For example, if your DZ has an incident it will be discovered that you are a group member of USPA who has signed a pledge to follow ALL of the rules. This means if you have broken ANY rules related to your USPA membership, wether it is related to the incident or not, the courts will conclude you have not been following industry standards and you will be found negligent.



Also means the USPA can be sued for not supervising THEIR Group Members. If you are going to "sanction" something, you better know exactly what's going on there.

J
Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jlmiracle

***

Second; why does USPA have no "teeth" to enforce their rules?
The answer is, it doesn't need to. In the US at least, our legal system provides all of the motivation, and then some, for DZO's to follow the rules. For example, if your DZ has an incident it will be discovered that you are a group member of USPA who has signed a pledge to follow ALL of the rules. This means if you have broken ANY rules related to your USPA membership, wether it is related to the incident or not, the courts will conclude you have not been following industry standards and you will be found negligent.



Also means the USPA can be sued for not supervising THEIR Group Members. If you are going to "sanction" something, you better know exactly what's going on there.

J

That would be an absurd legal standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeeroyJenkins

******

Second; why does USPA have no "teeth" to enforce their rules?
The answer is, it doesn't need to. In the US at least, our legal system provides all of the motivation, and then some, for DZO's to follow the rules. For example, if your DZ has an incident it will be discovered that you are a group member of USPA who has signed a pledge to follow ALL of the rules. This means if you have broken ANY rules related to your USPA membership, wether it is related to the incident or not, the courts will conclude you have not been following industry standards and you will be found negligent.



Also means the USPA can be sued for not supervising THEIR Group Members. If you are going to "sanction" something, you better know exactly what's going on there.

J

That would be an absurd legal standard.

Yes, but this is the United States of America, home of the MOST ABSURD legal cases ever brought to court and won! Anyone can be named in a lawsuit.

If you want to endorse/sanction a business, then you need to take responsibility for said business. And with all the supposed confidential reprimands, a jury may want to wonder what the USPA is hiding. I know I do.

j
Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If you want to endorse/sanction a business, then you need to take responsibility for said business.

That's silly. Every standards organization has the power to sanction businesses that participate in the standard. There are no cases where the standards body "takes responsibility" for that business after sanctions. There is a long legal tradition behind this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0